9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (11) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the recovery proceedings were time-barred - In the review applications filed by the respondents, it was asserted that two very important and relevant documents had been suppressed by the appellant – On the ground that relevant documents had been suppressed as well as on the ground that, on the basis of these relevant documents, the recovery proceedings had been taken within time, Manchanda J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1955, the recovery proceedings should have been taken by March 31, 1956, and, since the recovery certificate was actually issued on December 24, 1956, the recovery proceedings were time barred. He, accordingly, allowed the writ petition. In the review applications filed by the respondents, it was asserted that two very important and relevant documents had been suppressed by the appellant. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y against the judgment in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. This objection was rejected by Manchanda J. following a Full Bench decision of this court and a decision of the Supreme Court. Another objection was raised that the review application was time-barred. This objection was also repelled on the ground that the time taken in obtaining certified copies of the judgment or or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold that the view taken by Manchanda J. on this question is not correct. The fact that an appeal lay against the original judgment did not bar the review application. A special appeal was filed by the respondents but it was allowed to be withdrawn as the review application had been filed. At the time of the hearing of the review application, Manchanda J. examined the records of the income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
